Fairfield Connecticut Building Expert Directory

Unlicensed Contractors Caught in a Sting Operation

March 19, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Seven suspects were cited for contracting without a license after being caught by the Contractors State License Board (CSLB), reported CBS local news, and eighty-five people may face criminal charges. The undercover sting operations occurred over a two day period in Rancho Mirage, California. A hearing is scheduled for June 3rd at Riverside County Superior Court. CSLB Registrar Cindi A. Christenson told CBS, “Several of the suspects we targeted turned out to be repeat offenders and individuals with a criminal history and drug violations. If you knew their backgrounds, you'd never allow them near your home or family." Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Don’t Overlook Leading Edge Hazards

May 20, 2019 — Baxter Byrd - Construction Executive
Leading edge hazards are often misunderstood and overlooked on today’s highly visible jobsites. Evidence is readily available via images shared on construction-related social media accounts. In the context of people showing pride for the hard work they do or the extreme conditions under which they work, posts offer glimpses into the methods employed to mitigate fall hazards. Alarmingly, many of these methods do not adhere to industry-accepted standards, especially in the case of leading edge applications. Mincing Words The definition of “leading edge” itself has undergone somewhat of a transformation since its introduction by OSHA to its current use by ANSI in the Z359.14-2014 “Safety Requirements for Self-Retracting Devices for Personal Fall Arrest and Rescue Systems” standard. OSHA defines a leading edge as an “unprotected side or edge during periods when it is actively or continuously under construction,” giving many the impression that a leading edge was a temporary condition found only during the construction of a structure. Reprinted courtesy of Baxter Byrd, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Byrd may be contacted at info@puresafetygroup.com

Potential Extension of the Statutes of Limitation and Repose for Colorado Construction Defect Claims

April 27, 2020 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation
On January 27th, Senator Robert Rodriguez introduced SB 20-138 into the Colorado Legislature. The bill has been assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee and has not yet been scheduled for its first hearing in that committee. In short, Senate Bill 20-138, if enacted, would:

Extend Colorado’s statute of repose for construction defects from 6+2 years to 10+2 years;
Require tolling of the statute of repose until the claimant discovers not only the physical manifestation of a construction defect, but also its cause; and
Permit statutory and equitable tolling of the statute of repose.

Colorado’s statute of repose for construction defect claims are codified at C.R.S. § 13-80-104. In 1986, the Colorado Legislature set the statute of repose period at 6+2 years. For the last 34 years, Colorado’s statute of repose for owners’ claims against construction professionals has been substantially the same, to wit:

(1) (a) Notwithstanding any statutory provision to the contrary, all actions against any architect, contractor, builder or builder vendor, engineer, or inspector performing or furnishing the design, planning, supervision, inspection, construction, or observation of construction of any improvement to real property shall be brought within the time provided in section 13-80-102 after the claim for relief arises, and not thereafter, but in no case shall such an action be brought more than six years after the substantial completion of the improvement to the real property, except as provided in subsection (2) of this section.

(2) In case any such cause of action arises during the fifth or sixth year after substantial completion of the improvement to real property, said action shall be brought within two years after the date upon which said cause of action arises.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

Athens, Ohio, Sues to Recover Nearly $722,000 After Cyber Attack

January 21, 2025 — Jeff Yoders - Engineering News-Record
In November, Athens, Ohio, officials sent nearly $722,000 to a bank account they believed was set up by its contractor, Pepper Construction, to receive payment for its work on a fire station headquarters. The request was actually a sophisticated cyber attack that took advantage of a construction payment system that often does not allow clients processing invoices to directly know those behind the email addresses making the requests. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeff Yoders, ENR
Mr. Yoders may be contacted at yodersj@enr.com

Ohio Court Refuses to Annualize Multi-Year Policies’ Per Occurrence Limits

June 19, 2023 — Patricia Santelle, Adam Berardi & Lynndon Groff - White and Williams LLP
White and Williams recently obtained summary judgment against an insured on behalf of an insurer and a guarantor, establishing that two multi-year insurance policies provide per occurrence limits on a per policy rather than a per year basis, which shielded potential exposure by over $100 million. The insured had previously sought and obtained coverage under two policies in connection with a single occurrence arising out of massive environmental contamination claims involving a large industrial site. The issue of whether the policies provide per occurrence limits on a policy term or annual basis was not resolved in this earlier litigation. The first policy was effective for three years and provides per occurrence limits of $40 million. The second policy was effective for up to three years and provides per occurrence limits of $15 million. Reprinted courtesy of Patricia Santelle, White and Williams LLP, Adam Berardi, White and Williams LLP and Lynndon Groff, White and Williams LLP Ms. Santelle may be contacted at santellep@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Berardi may be contacted at berardia@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Groff may be contacted at groffl@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Ohio Court Finds No Coverage for Construction Defect Claims

March 01, 2012 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

Charles and Valerie Myers hired Perry Miller to build their home. Myers v. United Ohio Ins. Co., 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 287 (Ohio Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2012). After completion of the home, Miller was again hired to construct an addition which included a full basement, staircases, bathroom, bedroom, hallway and garage.

After the addition was completed, one of the basement walls began to crack and bow. Miller began to make repairs, but eventually stopped working on the project. Other contractors were hired to make repairs, but further problems developed. A second basement wall began to bow and crack, allowing water into the basement. The wall eventually had to be replaced. Subsequently, the roof over the addition began to leak in five or six places before the drywall could be painted. The leaks caused water stains on the drywall and cause it to separate and tear. It was discovered the roof needed to be replaced.

The Myers sued Miller and his insurer, United Ohio Insurance Company. The trial court ruled that the policy did not provide coverage for faulty workmanship, but did provide coverage for consequential damages caused by repeated exposure to the elements. United Ohio conceded liability in the amount of $2,000 to repair water damage to the drywall. United Ohio was also found liable for $51,576, which included $31,000 to repair the roof and ceiling and $18,576 to replace the basement wall.

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Policing Those Subcontractors: It Might Take Extra Effort To Be An Additional Insured

June 14, 2011 — Douglas Reiser, Builders Council Blog

I just came across a case that I think truly paints the insurance dilemma for contractors. Thanks to this recent Illinois case, I don’t have to make up any factual scenarios—so kudos to Attorney Robert Boylan for posting it.

In reading over my RSS feeds this weekend, I noticed a great writeup on long-time blogger Josh Glazov’s Construction Law Today. Attorney Robert Boylan’s post describes a recent Illinois case where a general contractor was denied its additional insured status on a second-tier subcontractor’s insurance. The reason for the denial: the general contractor failed to procure an agreement in writing with the second-tier subcontractor, requiring it to be listed as an additional insured.

Read the full story…

Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com